Bishops Misguided
The stated motives of the Bishops are
misguided — the basic protection for preborn life, and the
criminalization of abortion needs to be absolute. The adjusted
treatment of various people involved in abortion is a prudential
judgment better addressed in defenses, or sentencing, or prosecutorial
discretion.
Some women who abort do have criminal intent
(though of course many indeed are second victims), but all abortions
are murders and should be treated as such. The danger of the strategy
announced is that it could hamstring even a Human Life Amendment to
the Federal Constitution. And the report above makes a valid point
that requiring "constitutionality" for pro-life legislation is pure
capitulation to Roe.
. . .
Unfortunately, our prominent "pro-life" lobbying efforts are riddled
with pragmatism over principle, and the desire not to look too extreme
is potentially a contributing motive behind these Bishops' policies.
— by GenXsurvivor
Fuzzy Thinking
The bishops' position is problematic.
On one hand, the bishops want to see Roe v.
Wade overturned, and "legal protection extended to the preborn." OTOH,
they don't want the mother to be liable for punishment as a result of
such legal protection.
Part of this is a result of fuzzy thinking
and part of it is a result of compassion to the point of
soft-headedness. (The same qualities that led bishops into shunting
around priests guilty of sexual misconduct.)
And we need to acknowledge that both the pro-aboriton
and pro-life sides have painted the woman seeking an abortion as an
object of sympathy. However, this is not always the reality.
— by LatinMan
Bunch of weak bishops?
The way I understand their reasoning for
refusing to support this bill is because it totally criminalizes the
mother. It is widely held by pro-life groups that the mother is the
second victim.
I know off the bat it seems like a bunch of
weak Bishops. But there seems to be more to this story than that.
— by DianneD